The Tale Notoriously Distorted

MINDEL ARCHIVE GEMS : Parshas Toldos

“The Jew is conniving and dishonest:” How did this oft-repeated malicious statement and false image come about?

THE SELLING OF THE FIRST-BORN RIGHTS BY EISAV TO YAAKOV – a story notoriously mistranslated and misinterpreted by the non-Jews over the millennia – is likely the single most damning piece of evidence that explains this shameful fabrication about the Jew.

Rabbi Shalom Ber Schapiro is sharing a fascinating exchange of letters from the Mindel Archives – between Rabbi Dr. Nissan Mindel (personal secretary of the Rebbe and prolific author of Chassidic literature) and some members of the Hebrew Union College who had come out with a new translation of the Bible in the early 1960’s.

The background

When the NEW JPS (Jewish Publication Society) TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE first appeared in the early 1960’s –

Traditional scholars lost no time in criticizing this “translation”, in articles, reviews and panel discussions…

“ (it ) paraphrases what has been written by the non-Jews in their King James’ translation…”

“(it) has its subject matter the “Bible”, but it is certainly not “Torah”.
“(it) is deceptive in that it passes off as “Torah” that which is essentially a paraphrase of the Bible”.

Mindel joins the defenders of Torah

Rabbi Mindel – linguist and expert in the Holy language, was eminently qualified to make a case against this notorious translation by using the rules of Hebrew grammar to point out the gross mistranslations and misleading connotations. He carried on an extensive exchange of letters in February of 1963, with some of the team of scholars responsible for the “translation.”

We present here a brief synopsis of some of the points made by Rabbi Mindel in his letters to Dr. H. Orlinsky of the Hebrew Union College and Prof. E. Speiser.
Passages in Gen. 25: 27-34 as they are translated, says Mindel, “I find particularly disappointing on the grounds…”:

It does violence both to the spirit and letter of the text

It further defames the much-maligned (by Christian translations) character of Yaakov/Yisrael, our “favorite patriarch”, whose name is that of our people
The translation implies that the food (beans) was “legal consideration “ for sale
It further implies that Yaakov took advantage of his famished brother
That he “forced’ him to sell the birthright

And that he was “crafty” and a cunning cheat (no wonder the prototype of the Jewish Shylock is still promoted as fact).

Refuting these misleading translations and connotations – using facts and rules of grammar:

Eisav is described as “a skillful hunter” and Yaakov –“a mild (tam) man who stayed in camp”. (nowhere in the Bible is tam referred to as wishy washy mildness, as your translation implies). Eisav’s character comes across quite eloquently, Yakkov’s – not so.

Your translation assumes that Yaakov, the younger brother, was in a bargaining position with his older brother. This is certainly not the case, as is well known in the prevailing society and in halachah. The older brother has almost the same authority as a parent, as he relates to his younger brothers (as we see in the case of Reuven who overruled his brothers and Yehudah could only suggest). Given this status, Eisav could have easily ordered Yaakov to feed him and Yaakov would comply. To suggest Yaakov bargaining with his older brother is absurd.
Where does the “oath” come in to the sale of the birthright? Of all the sales mentioned in the Bible, this is the only case where an oath was involved with the sale. If, as your translation implies, the food was the legal tender to the sale, why the need for an oath? It becomes clear that the food did not legalize the sale – being that Yaakov was obligated, as the younger brother, to give the food to his older brother – but rather, it was the oath and only the oath that made it legal.
There are also grammatical inaccuracies: in Biblical Hebrew, a sequence of actions is expressed with vav consecutive (which, together with the verb in the imperfect, indicates a series of consecutive actions in the past). Note – that in the section we are discussing (verses 27-34) – all the verses but the last, follow this construction. Verse 34, however, breaks this continuity and the simple perfect tense is used here –“V’Yaakov nossan”(Yaakov had given), instead of “”Va’yiten Yaakov” (as should have been expected if it were a continuation as were the others, “then Yaakov gave”). This can only mean that V’Yaakov nossan/Yaakov had given – the past perfect- is not a consequent action, not a continuation of the action before it. It merely states that “Yaakov had given”. Had it been written “vayiten Yaakov”/then Yaakov gave, where the vav consecutive is used, it would have indicated that the giving (of the stew) is a consequent and continuation of the act before.

An additional error, which amplifies the grammatical one just stated, you insert the word “first” (verses 31 and 33), which is not in the text (nor implied therein). This word, first, gives the false impression that the food is a prerequisite to the sale.

The correct and factual conclusion: what really happened on that fateful day?

Eisav comes in hungry, finds his younger brother stewing lentils and asks to be fed

Yaakov gives him a complete meal – bread, lentils, water.
While Eisav is gulping down his food, Yaakov asks him to sell him his birthright (ka’yom/in earnest).

Eisav, as hunter, knows that his life is precarious and is ready to give the birthright away for the asking.

Yaakov wants to legalize the transaction and so asks Eisav to swear to him – ka’yom/earnestly.

Eisav swears and the deal is complete – verse 34 is a fitting epilogue to this episode.

CONTRAST OF THE TWO BROTHERS

One is hairy, the other smooth-skinned
One is a cunning (not skillful) hunter and the other is a sincere man (ish tam – any adjective the opposite of “cunning”, but nowhere translated as “mild”).
One is a man of the field and the other, a dweller of tents.

Eisav sold, or gave away his birthright; it was certainly not coerced out of him. The birthright is a privilege and a responsibility, which Eisav was anxious to shed. He later (verse 27) changes his mind and claims that Yaakov “took away” his birthday. This only proves Eisav’s inconsistency and fickleness of character. The legality of the transaction of the birthright from Eisav to Yaakov is eventually vindicated (36:6).

(“Granted, some commentaries, like the RASHBAM, connect the food with the sale, but what right have you to translate the word “kayom”, as “first”, implying it to be a prerequisite?”)

P.S.
Dr. Orlinsky answers Rabbi Mindel’s letters, but with no attempt to defend their erroneous translation of these verses. Prof. Speiser does make an attempt.
Among others included in these exchanges are: R’ G.B. Jacobson of the Algemeiner Journal who debated Dr. Orlinsky, and some of those who expressed an interest in the discussion – Dr. S.B. Hoenig of Yeshivah University and Rabbi A. Shemtov of Philadelphia.